↓ Skip to main content

Key components in models of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a mixed studies systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Key components in models of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a mixed studies systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0143-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Backhouse, Chris Dickens, David Richards, Rose McCabe

Abstract

Current health and social care systems are providing suboptimal and fragmented care to the growing dementia population. Interventions aiming to coordinate care services for individuals with dementia and their families are already widely used; however, the structure and implementation of these interventions vary. This mixed studies review aims to investigate the key components of effective community-based interventions that focus on coordinating care in dementia. We will search MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase and PsycINFO databases for studies of any design that look at community-based interventions that aim to coordinate dementia care through the allocation of a specified professional responsible for provision of care. Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Social Policy and Practice (SPP), ProQuest and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases will be searched for grey literature. Outcomes of interest are health outcome measures that relate to the individual with dementia and/or informal caregiver, measures of resource use or process measures. Two independent reviewers will screen identified papers and extract data from eligible studies. Evidence synthesis will take place in three stages, and methods will be largely dependent on the data available. A sequential review design will be used where the qualitative evidence will be synthesised first, focusing on stakeholder's subjective views of key components. This will drive forward the quantitative stage which will identify key components of effective interventions. The final stage of the review will merge the two strands of evidence through a narrative synthesis. The results from this review will be used to develop a model for a community-based intervention coordinating care in dementia. Furthermore, the findings will help guide future work on intervention development of health and social care services for dementia. PROSPERO CRD42015024618.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Other 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 22%
Psychology 8 15%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,635,565
of 14,411,276 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#346
of 1,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,149
of 283,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#37
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,411,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.